Maya Forstater

But a very interesting question in your case is whether there is a legally recognized boundary where a view can be gagged at work and yet protected from discrimination when expressed off work.

To be honest, I do not see this boundary in UK law. But then I am not a lawyer (nor in the UK, but the Republic of Ireland setup seems broadly similar - Northern Ireland on the other hand is different as political views are expressly protected there).

Personally I would prefer that such a boundary would exist, and that views lawfully and properly disallowed at work could still be protected from employment discrimination when expressed outside work.

So I think you are saying that in your view yes this is a protected belief under the EqA (i.e. it meets the 5 Grainger criteria)? And like all protected beliefs the question of whether an employer can restrain expression of the belief is one of proportionate means/legitimate aim?

It is not just about my views. There already is the Mackereth decision, which named he view incompatible with criterion 5. The question is whether this incompatibility is conditional on the view being applied at work, or absolute. I'd prefer "conditional".

The Mackereth decision did not just say that the employer had a legitimate aim to restrict expression of the view, it named *the view itself* incompatible with human dignity. And this is the precedent you work with. The Christian Legal Centre poisoned the well for you.

This would be more clean-cut if you did not attempt to submit an anti-trans work about development, in my view. The work was rightly rejected as incompatible with the values of the company. They could perhaps claim that you intended to keep submitting such incompatible works?